Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

KHALILUR REHMAN versus STATE


Section 497 (2) Complaint for further investigation filed by the deposed party appeared to the magistrate after approximately one month's incident and delayed the police refusing to file a medical report from the complainant's instance. Attempted to explain. On the night of the incident, his father examined him and the applicant's father was shown that he had suffered serious injuries from the firearm case, on the facts of which the applicant's father had filed the case for the purpose. Was not kept for The Sessions Judge, on the basis of his acquittal of the bail but on the basis of the allegations made by him, was, in these circumstances, wrong in allowing the applicant to bail on the basis of the response version presented by him and his father. Didn't say [inquiry]

1979 S C M R 168

Present : Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Nasim Hasan Shah, J

KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN‑Petitioner

versus

THE STATE‑Respondent

Appeal No. 44‑R of 1978, decided on 12th December 197 .

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1360/B of 1978).

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

‑‑ S. 497 (2)‑Bail‑Further inquiry‑Complaint filed by opposite‑party coming up before Magistrate after about a month of incident and delay sought to be explained by fact of police having refused to register case at complainant's instance‑Medical report on injury of petitioner and his father showing their having been examined on night of incident and petitioner's father shown having received a grievous injury from fire‑arm‑Case, on such facts, held, not a case of counter version having been put across by petitioner's father for purpose of obtaining bail but allegations made by him founded on some basis‑Sessions Judge, in circumstances, held further, not wrong in allowing bail to petitioner on ground of counter version put forward by him and his father indicating need for further inquiry.‑[Inquiry].

Atta‑ur‑Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Asif Jan, Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Date of hearing : 7th December, 1978.

ORDER

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.

‑After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose of accordingly.

At about 7 or 8 p.m. on the 8th of June, 1977, a quarrel took place between the petitioner Khalil‑ur‑Rehman and his father Rehmat on the one hand, and the complainant Muhammad Ishaq and his companions on the other hand, which resulted in injuries to Abdur Rehman deceased, who expired on the 19th of June, 1977. The First Information Report was made at Police Station, Okara by Muhammad Ishaq at 0‑35 a.m. during the same night. It is alleged that the petitioner's father Rehmat Khan also tried to lodge a counter report, but it was not registered by the police, with the result that he filed a private complaint on the 7th of July, 1977, against Muhammad Ishaq, Babu Muhammad Sharif, Jalal, Abdur Rehman deceased, Syed Usman Ali Shah and Faiz Ahmad, and in that complaint the accused persons were summoned by a Magistrate of the First Class by his order dated 28th of November, 1977.

By an order made on the 29th of January, 1978, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, allowed bail to the petitioner, primarily on the ground that there was a counter version of the incident, in which the pro secution witnesses had been summoned as accused persons, on the basis of evidence that the petitioner Khalilur Rehman and his father Rehmat had sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant party, and that the injury sustained by the petitioner's father was a pellet injury on the back which had fractured one of the ribs, However, this order has been set aside by a learned Judge of the High Court on the 30th of May, 1978, and the bail allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge had been cancelled, on the observation that the counter complaint was filed by the petitioner's father Rehmat Khan after about five months of the incident, and that, in any case, the mere filing of a counter complaint would not entitle an accused person to the concession of bail.

'It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen in error in thinking that the complaint filed by the petitioner's father was delayed by five months as, in fact, Rehmat Khan and the petitioner had got themselves medically examined the same night, and their private complaint was filed on the 6th of July, 1977, and not in November, 1977. He also submits that while it is true that the mere filing of a counter complaint would not entitle an accused person to the grant of bail, but in the peculiar circumstances of the present case the counter version was supported by the injuries found on the person of the petitioner and his father, thus showing that the party of the deceased Abdur Rehman were the aggressors.

After persuing the record, we are of the view that the learned Judge in the High Court was not right in thinking that the petitioner's father had delayed filing his counter complaint for a period of five months, as, in fact, the complaint filed by Rehmat Khan came up before the learned Magistrate o the 7th of July, 1977, I.e. after about a month of the incident, and the delay was sought to be explained by the fact that the police had refused to register the case at Rehmat Khan's instance. The medical report on the injury of the petitioner and his father shows that they were examined by Dr. Muhammad Athar at 11‑15 p.m. on the night of the incident, and that the petitioners father had sustained one grievous injury from a fire‑arm. These facts would show that it is not just a case of a counter version having been put across by the petitioner's father for the purpose of obtaining bail, but that there was some foundation for the allegations made by him. This being the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not wrong in allowing bail to the petitioner on the ground that the counter version put forward by him and his father indicated that there was need for further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This being the case, the learned Judge in the High Court was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court.

As a result we would accept this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court on the 30th of May, 1978, and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated the 29th of January, 1978. If the petitioner has already furnished bail in accordance with that order, then he need not furnish fresh bail bonds. If he has not already done so, then he shall now furnish security in the sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Com missioner/Deputy Magistrate of Okara as already directed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous supreme court advocate from Bannu lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.